Language Arts Journal of Michigan

Volume 27
Article 11
Issue 2 Grammar Matters

1-1-2012

Exploring Effective Feedback Techniques in the

ESL Classroom
Molly B. McCord
Henry Ford Community College, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/lajm

Recommended Citation
McCord, Molly B. (2012) "Exploring Effective Feedback Techniques in the ESL Classroom," Language Arts Journal of Michigan: Vol.
27: Iss. 2, Article 11.
Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.9707/2168-149X.1905

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@GVSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Language Arts Journal of
Michigan by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@GVSU. For more information, please contact [email protected].
 A publication of the Michigan Council of Teachers of English

Molly B. McCord

Exploring Effective Feedback Techniques in the ESL Classroom

t is the final week of classes at the college, and my Eng­ both surface error correction and content-based feedback in my

I lish 092 (ESL Composition) students have just turned

in their final essays. When I sit down to begin the long
process of commenting and grading, I have high hopes;
I have spent many hours providing detailed feedback on
my students' previous writing assignments on everything from
subject-verb agreement to topic sentence effectiveness with
the intention of helping them develop more advanced writing
ESL classes. Since I began teaching, I have subscribed to the
"more is better" idea when it comes to providing feedback on
ESL student writing; I feel it is my job to guide them through
the writing process, and more feedback means more guidance.
But due to time constraints, I do not always see multiple drafts
of all student essays. Therefore, I am often unaware of actual
student uptake of my written feedback. I began to wonder if
skills. In addition to my written comments, I have also con­ the information I glean from looking more closely at the value
ducted a variety of grammar and sentence structure lessons on of my written feedback will lead me to more critically examine
topics such as verb tense usage, subject verb-agreement, and my teaching practices as well, and perhaps make some changes
punctuation that I hoped would aid in my students' writing that would have a more noticeable impact on the progress of
progress. Alas, as I page through their work, I notice students my students' writing.
committing the same errors in their final essays as they have in
previous ones. Mo, Ali, and Saad (names have been changed What Type ofWrirten Feedback Works?
for privacy protection) continue to exhibit persistent subject­ Given the many hours I spend reading and responding to
verb agreement errors despite my instruction and feedback on student writing, I suppose what I would really like to know is if
this topic, while Rana's and Diana's* essays still contain mul­ I am wasting my time. But coming to a more informed conclu­
tiple sentence fragments. As my high hopes begin to fade, I be­ sion about my feedback practices is not a purely selfish pursuit;
gin to wonder: is my written feedback simply a waste oftime? discovering the most efficient way to provide feedback would
benefit both my students as learners and me as their time-chal­
Study Rationale lenged instructor. How much uptake of grammar-based surface
As an English Composition Instructor at a community college, error corrections is happening with my ESL students? Is direct
I spend countless hours providing written feedback to my stu­ grammar/sentence structure instruction helping to reduce the
dents on their writing assignments. I offer particularly numer­ occurrence of various errors in their written work? What other
ous comments to my English as a Second Language students, types of feedback (contentiorganization/coherence/unity)­
since I consider not only their content and organization, but also would guide ESL students as writers? I believe gathering data
grammar usage and sentence structure/punctuation. Despite from a case study about student use of all forms of feedback
research that posits might begin to help clarify these questions, and in tum offer me
I began to wonder if the the ineffectiveness of and other ESL writing instructors insight into more appropriate
information I glean from surface error correc­ pedagogical techniques. But first, I tum to existing literature in
looking more closely at the tion, I continue the the field of written feedback to gain a deeper understanding of
value of my written feedback practice of providing the issues surrounding ESL writing.
written feedback on
will lead me to more criti­ correct usage of gram­ Contextual Factors to Consider
cally examine my teaching matical structures to My analysis of the literature revealed several factors that are
practices as well, and perhaps my ESL students. I essential to a more thorough understanding of what constitutes
make some changes that provide some direct effective written feedback. These factors are discussed below.
grammar and sentence
would have a more noticeable structure/punctuation Factor #1 :
impact on the progress of my instruction in my ESL The nature of the feedback provided (direct vs. indirect).
students' writing. classes, which is one According to Ferris (2010), there is a distinction between ex­
reason I believe I feel plicit surface error correction and errors that are simply called
the need to comment to the student's attention. At the beginning of every semester,
on student usage of these structures. Most assignments are I provide my ESL students with a "Guide to Correction Ab­
expository in nature, so I also spend a great deal of time dis­ breviations" in an effort to help them interpret my corrective
cussing more content-based topics, including thesis statement feedback. For example, "s-v" stands for subject-verb agree­
formation, topic sentence formation and placement, and orga­ ment. We discuss the list of codes and correct some examples
nizational techniques. However, in light ofthe aforementioned together as a class. Because I do not typically offer the exact
research, I recently find myself questioning the usefulness of correction, and instead merely "hint" at it with my abbrevia-

The Language Arts Journal of Michigan, Volume 27, Number 2, Spring 2012 41
 A publication of the Michigan Council of Teachers of English

tions, I at first considered my feedback to mainly be indirect. Factor #3:

However, it appears from Ferris's definitions of the two types The effects of time on student uptake offeedback (short-term
of feedback that my "coding" would constitute a more direct vs. long-term effects). One of the most debated issues in the
form of feedback, since I am providing explicit guidance on discussion of written corrective feedback provision involves
the type of correction needed (as opposed to simply underlin­ student retention of feedback, anod what constitutes actual
ing/not using codes). Before reading Ferris's explanation of "learning" based on immediate and long-range student essay
the two distinct methods of providing feedback, I would have revisions. While Ferris (2004) posits that student editing of
assumed 'direct' to mean correcting the error for the leamer, as texts immediately following instructor feedback on grammar
opposed to offering a coded suggestion for correction. Clearly forms is at least helpful in longer term improvement of student
in favor of the indirect form, Ferris (2004) states that, "teach­ writing accuracy, Truscott and Hsu (2008) find that "successful
ers should provide indirect feedback that engages students in error reduction during revision is not a predictor oflearning" (p.
cognitive problem-solving as they attempt to self-edit based 292). Truscott and Hsu
upon the feedback that they have received" (p. 60). I do un­ define student learn­
derstand that a less explicit (underline or circle only) form of ing as "improvements
My students come to the
feedback might engage the student more deeply in the revision in learners' ability to classroom with a myriad
process, as he/she is challenged to define the error and correct write accurately" (p. of educational and cultural
it appropriately. To add further legitimacy to her claim of in­ 293), and tend to dis­ experiences, and I hesitate to
direct feedback superiority, Ferris (20 10) notes that in student miss studies that do
approach my teaching from a
interviews, L2 learners have, "expressed a clear preference for not take into account
indirect feedback" (p. 190). I am intrigued by Ferris's findings; learner ability to apply prescriptivist perspective.
my coding method of feedback is time-consuming and now I feedback received on
question its effectiveness. one text to a new writ­
ing task. Their research demonstrates no correlation between
Factor #2: immediate student revision of an existing text based on instruc­
The type of feedback provided (focus on form vs. content). As tor feedback and student retention of such feedback on subse­
previously indicated, I provide feedback on both surface struc­ quent writing assignments. Ferris (2004), however, recognizes
ture errors and content-based errors on my ESL student essays, the value in short-term editing, saying that it helps "to assess
and I am certain many ESL writing instructors do the same. student uptake of corrections received" (p. 54). Though I am
I am interested in discovering the effectiveness of both types interested in discovering both short-term and long-term effects
of feedback in order to focus my efforts on giving the most of my written corrective feedback, I would ideally like to know
useful comments. Hillocks (2005) reports findings in favor of ifmy immediate feedback lends itself to longer-term uptake by
content-based instruction and feedback, despite the fact that my students, and if their error revisions following my feedback
historically, "form has become part of their linguistic repertoire and help them make
I hypothesize that the surface been so overwhelm­ fewer errors on future essays.
error feedback that I provide, ingly an instructional
focus"(p. 243). He Factor #4:
given its more concrete/right claims that focus on The underlying socio-cultural factors involved in "correc­
or wrong nature, lends itself content rather than tion" of student work. Aside from the technical aspects of writ­
more readily for ESL student form "gives students ten corrective feedback, there are also socio-cultural factors
uptake, as opposed to the less the power to work to consider when providing feedback to diverse student popu­
concrete inquiry-type feed­ with ideas" (p. 243). lations. I often struggle with the notion that only a specific
I hypothesize that the form of English is ac­
back I offer for content issues surface error feedback ceptable in academic I fear the possibility that by
in student essays. that I provide, given writing. My students including grammar instruc­
its more concrete/right come to the classroom
or wrong nature, lends with a myriad of edu- tion as part of my ESL class­
itself more readily for ESL student uptake, as opposed to the cational and cultural es, I perpetuate «false and
less concrete inquiry-type feedback I offer for content issues in experiences, and I anachronistic notions about
student essays. Though it may be more complex for students hesitate to approach language".
to comprehend, Hillocks promotes the strength of inquiry by my teaching from a
claiming that "it challenges students to do more than they can prescriptivist perspec­
on their own but provides the scaffolding to allow them to push tive. However, I understand that my students are confused by
beyond what they can already do"(p. 242). This is a promis­ ambiguity in language usage (as they have expressed to me),
ing statement, and I am interested through my case study to and because of this I feel obligated to teach grammar forms
examine ESL student uptake of my content-based feedback, in and rules. For example, punctuation is always an area of un­
addition to (and perhaps compared to) the feedback on surface ease with my ESL students, and they frequently want to know
(granunatical) errors that I also provide. the "rules" for correct comma placement.. I teach them about
comma splices, run-on sentences, sentence fragments, and co­
ordinating conjunctions, but sometimes I am not sure if teach-

42 The Language Arts Journal of Michigan, Volume 27, Number 2, Spring 2012
 A publication of the Michigan Council of Teachers of English

ing the Standard English rules (and subsequently highlighting only: thesis statement, topic sentences, and details/examples.
errors on their essays) doesn't just confuse them more, given The student received the outline with my feedback and pro­
multiple exceptions and the complexity of the language sur­ ceeded to hand in a "rough draft" of his final essay two days
rounding these structural topics (subordinate clauses and con­ later. Upon providing various written remarks on the "rough
junctions, for instance). As I question this practice, Shafer draft", including grammar (subject-verb agreement/verb tense),
(2004) offers his viewpoint that "with notions of correctness punctuation (sentence fragments, comma splices, run-on sen­
expanded to fit the language of myriad races and ethnicities, we tences), and content (organizational techniques, topic sentenc­
learn more about the realities of authentic speech and become es, relevant supporting details), I returned the paper to the stu­
more inclusive as educators" (p. 67). I fear the possibility that dent, who proceeded to compose a "final draft" of the essay. I
by including grammar instruction as part of my ESL classes, collected both the rough and final versions of the essay to help
I perpetuate "false and anachronistic notions about language" establish a better understanding of the student's uptake of my
(Shafer, 2004, p. 68). Is my feedback causing my students feedback. I also gave him a questionnaire that addresses his
to feel less confident in their language usage, in tum raising use of and feelings about the comments in order to gain a bet­
their affective filters, leading them to become less motivated ter understanding of the affective dimension of revision, and
and more fearful of writing? This would obviously be an un­ to gain a more personal perspective on my student's revision
desirable outcome of my feedback provision. Homer (1992) process.
addresses the complex matter of instructor error correction on
student texts by explaining the necessity of engaging "issues of Feedback Questionnaire
power, authority, and conflict" and that errors are the "product 1. What feedback did you feel was most useful on the essay
ofsocial relationships" (p. 176). I continue to examine how my plan? What feedback was least useful? Was there feedback you
own social status might affect my provision offeedback on my did not understand? If so, please specify.
ESL students' work, as it is my goal to value and promote their 2. When revising your rough draft, did you focus more on
unique personal uses ofthe English language. Both Homer and grammar and sentence structure, on organization and content
Shafer agree that students must be part of the error correction of the essay, or did you spend equal time on both tasks? What
process, and I am already thinking about ways to more deeply area (grammar or content) did you feel the feedback indicated
engage my students in the feedback discussion. was more important? Why?
3. Describe your feelings when reading the feedback on your
Factor #5: rough draft.
Instructors' views on feedback provision. Since I began teach­ 4. Did you receive any outside help (from a tutor, friend, rela­
ing, I have always felt obligated to provide as much written tive, etc.) when revising any of your work? If so, how did this
feedback to students as possible. This personal "more is better" person!people help you interpret the feedback?
belief is something I have recently begun to examine as I try to 5. Describe how you feel about your final draft, and why you
discover the effectiveness of my feedback. Evans, Hartshorn, feel this way.
and Tuioti (2010) discuss differences in instructor approaches
to feedback provision in their study highlighting teacher beliefs
about providing written corrective feedback to second language Findings
learners. Their findings indicate that nearly all teachers of sec­ On the student's first draft of his essay, I provided the follow­
ond language learners use written corrective feedback in one ing feedback:
form or another, and while some expressed some reservations
about the helpfulness of such feedback, the majority of teach­ 1. Seven content-based comments, including thesis statement
ers think that students need it, and that "WCF is an effective and topic sentence clarification, paragraph coherence, wording
pedagogical practice"(p. 54). It is interesting to discover that clarification, and suggestions for avoiding repetition.
many ESL instructors hold beliefs similar to mine regarding 2. Thirty direct coded surface error comments, including in­
the use of feedback in student essays, but I also wonder about dication of comma splices, sentence fragments, and run-on
the difficulty of reconciling one's personally-held beliefs about sentences, spelling errors, subject-verb agreement errors, verb
the practice of feedback provision with the findings of research tense errors, and word choice errors.
demonstrating its limitations. This is a key consideration for 3. Eight indirect uncoded (underlined and circled) surface error
me as I attempt to discover ifmy feedback really is working. corrections, including capitalization and apostrophe deletion!
While I plan to consider all five of these factors when analyz­ addition.
ing the results of my case study, my primary concern is dis­ The revised final draft of the essay indicated that the student
covering student use of my written feedback, and perhaps why made use of the majority of my feedback. He appropriately
certain types of feedback might lend themselves more readily revised 24 of the 30 direct coded surface errors, eliminating
to student uptake than others (Factors #1 and #2). all but one punctuation-based error. Indirect feedback may be
the preferred method according to Ferris, but it also appears
Methodology through this case study that a direct approach may also be an
To help illuminate the effectiveness of comments on student effective feedback technique, at least in the short term revision
essays, I chose one student for a case study in my English 092 process. He also revised all eight of the indirect uncoded sur­
(ESL Composition) course. I first collected an essay plan, or face errors (supporting Ferris's (2004) idea), and addressed five
outline, from the student, and provided feedback on content of the seven content-based comments, either through re-word-

The Language Arts Journal of Michigan, Volume 27, Number 2, Spring 2012 43
 A publication ofthe Michigan Council of Teachers of English

deletion of awkward phrases, or adding explanatory detail. appears that while I provided more form-based (grammar and
His ability to accurately revise many of his errors is encourag­ surface structure) feedback than comments on content, and the
ing to me as his' instructor and feedback provider. Even though student indicated the importance of addressing surface errors,
the results were mainly the student also unnecessarily student of both kinds of feedback (grammar-based or
~pl1i"ro,t",rI paragraphs two paragraphs instead of one) content-based) seemed comparable. teacher feed­
in two instances, which could indicate a misunderstanding of back in all areas of including grammar, appears to be
my inquiry-based feedback on his content. I asked him if he valuable. Secondly, my direct coded feedback seemed to lend
intended to write about two seemingly unrelated in the itself to immediate student uptake quite well during the revi­
same paragraph (my goals was to he focus only on one sion process, despite my skepticism about this feedback fol­
topic), ana the student still discussed both topics, but in sepa­ lowing a review of Ferris's research. For this reason, I feel it
rate paragraphs. I am reminded of Hillocks' (2005) emphasis may be a worthwhile endeavor for writing instructors to en­
on the of inquiry in response to student I am gage in a more direct grammar feedback for their ESL
not discouraged by the possible confusion that my feedback students. Surveying the students about their feedback prefer­
caused the student, since he did adjust his writing in response ences, perhaps in the form offered by the Feedback
to most of my content instead, I am interested in dis­ naire, may also aid teachers in the best feedback
ways in which my question formation might more method (direct or indirect) for each student. In addition, the
""",Ln,n""y convey my intended message to my ESL students. results of this case study a possible correlation between
wording the in a different, possibly more direct instruction about surface structures and student rec-
way, may clarifY my intentions for the student's revision. Vl"i"UJIVU and uptake of corrections involving those structures.

The student's answers to the Feedback Questionnaire offered Even though the student in my made mUltiple punctua­
some additional insight into his thought process while revis­ tion and sentence structure errors on the first draft of his essay
his essay, and described in his about my even after I had provided mini-lessons on these topics, after
feedback. He indicated that my feedback drew his attention to rpt'.PlVtna my feedback he indicated that his attention was im­

his continued issues with fragments and punctuation, and that mediately drawn to these areas that we had discussed in class.
he recognized many of his mistakes after they were indicated So, in the revision process, the class instruction, particularly
through my comments. The fact that my surface errors com­ that which addressed punctuation and sentence fragments, ap­
ments about grammar and sentence structure outnumbered those peared to prove somewhat useful. Based on the answers to the
about the con­ Feedback Questionnaire, I was able to gain into what at
Even thongh it appeared that my tent of the stu­
first seemed to be a lack of feedback uptake, but instead was
grammar and punctuation lessons dent's essay, in
perhaps a delay in error recognition that could be helped along
did not have an immediate effect addition to the
with continued teacher and student attention. Again, a personal
on this student's first draft, his fact that I had re­
survey of students' reactions to feedback looks as if to be a
cently conduct­ useful tool for teachers to determine the effectiveness of their
answers to the questionnaire help ed class lessons grammar and sentence structure lessons.
to indicate his increased aware- on punctuation
ness to these areas, which gives and sentence Next Steps
me some hope that perhaps all of fragments, may While it offers some potentially useful insight into my current
have made the feedback further exploration of my feedback provi­
my efforts are not going to waste. student more sion is necessary if I want to come to a deeper understanding
aware of these of its effectiveness. I propose my definition of "ef­
particular errors. He noted that he did not many com­ fective" to mean not only immediate student uptake of feed­
ments on his essay since he thought he put a great deal of effort back on same-essay but also student retention and
into the first but found the comments quite helpful as they employment ofthe feedback on future unrelated writing
helped him recognize his areas of particularly with ments. In this my definition of "effective" coincides
to sentence structure and punctuation. Reading this stu­ with Truscott and Hsu's (2008) definition of student
dent's responses to the Feedback Questionnaire gave me some I believe further, more longitudinal studies conducted with this
insight into his revision process and reactions to my feedback. extended definition in mind would help me come to a more
Even though it appeared that my grammar and punctuation les­ informed conclusion about the longer-term effectiveness of my
sons did not have an immediate effect on this student's first grammar-based written feedback.
draft, his answers to the questionnaire help to indicate his in­
creased awareness to these areas, which me some hope References
that perhaps all of my efforts are not to waste.
Evans, N. W., Hartshorn, J., & Allen Tuioti., E. (2010). Written corrective feed­
Conclusion and Recommendations back: practioners' perspectives. International Journal 0/ English Studies.
10.2,47-77,183,185+.
Because this case study was conducted with only one student Ferris, D. R. (20 I0). Second language writing research and written corrective
and in a restricted time the results are obviously incon­ feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 181-20 I.
clusive, but the study did help me come to some preliminary --; (2004). The "grammar correction" debate in L2 writing: where are we, and
conclusions about feedback techniques as well as implications where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime. ?). Journal
o/Second Langauge Writing, 13, 49-62.
for further research surrounding feedback provision. First, it

44 The Language Arts Journal of Michigan, Volume 27, Number 2, 2012

 A publication of the Michigan Council of Teachers of English

Hillocks, Jr., G. (2005). At last : the focus on fonn vs. content in teaching writ­
ing. Research in the Teaching ofEnglish, 40.2, 238-48.
Homer, B. (1992). Rethinking the "sociality" of error: teaching editing as nego­
tiation. Rhetoric Review, II.2, 172-99.
Shafer, G. (2004) Refonning writing and rethinking Correctness. English Jour­
nal, 94, 66-71.
Truscott, J. & Hsu, A. (2008) Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal
of Second Langauge Writing, 17,292-305.

Molly McCord has been a full time ESLlEnglish Composition

Instructor at Henry Ford Community College in Dearborn, MI
since 2009 with experience teaching ESL both in the USA (Ann
Arbor and Boston) and abroad (Turkey and Switzerland). She
holds a BA in Linguistics and Spanish from the University of
Michigan Ann Arbor, and an MA in Applied Linguistics from
UMass Boston. She is currently working on a certificate in
Written Communication~mphasis in Teaching of Writing­
at Eastern Michigan University.

Michigan Council of Teachers 01 English

p resents

Foil Conference 2012

"Policy, Pra c tic e . ond Power: UpholdIng Our Co n victions In De mandIn g TIme s"

October 19. 2012. KeUog9 Hotel and Conterence Center, MlchJgan Sta1e University, Eost lansing. Michigan.

Pro posa l Deadlin e: Plea se compl ete the a ttached form ond email it 10 Da vid Hamm o ntree
h ammonINioaklOl'd. edU (wi lh subjec l " M e TE CF P") by f rida y. July 27. 20 12.

O n Friday. October 19, 2012. w e win we lcom e two inspiring voi ces 10 Eas t Lansing, M chigo n:

• Jim BurKe - teacher a nd author o f a lmost twent y bOO KS, inc luding The English
Te acher's Companio n: A Comp lete Guide to Classroom, C urriCUlum , a nd 'he
Pro fess ion a nd Wha t's the Big Ide a ? QuestiotrDriven Units to Mo tiva te Reading,
Writing, an d Thin kin g .
• Dr. A nne Ruggl es Ge re, Professor of English, Professor of Education, Presid e nt of
The Jam es R. Sq uire Offic e o f Policy Research in fhe English l a ng uage Art s,
Director o f the Swee llond Writing Cen ter at the Univer>ity o f MiChigan. a nd
aut hor o f Wn'lin g on De m an d: Best Prac tices an d Slra /eg ies for Success.

We invite educa tor> to sub mit presenta tio n p roposals tha t highlight new id e a s a nd be st prac tic es lor
teac hers, instructors, p rolessor> , and o th e r p rac titioners in Language Arts. Please consid er submi lling a
proposal tha t hi ghligh ts:

• The c hallenge s o f diffe rent iating inst ruc tio n in your c lassroom .
• How bes l 1o address issues o f d iver>;Iy. ide nli ly, ond social juslice in rhe classroom
• How besl to g uide stud en ts toward critica l. m ulti·l o c e te d views of the English lang uage
Arts.
• Creo ling e ngaging les so ns while attend ing to Michigan Cont e n l StandardS a nd/or
Com m o n Core St ondords
• Ways yo u a nd your colleagues are working oul Ih e new core con tent standards to
improv e educat ion .
• Young AduH and C hildren 's Literature .
• The im plicat ions of Web 2.0 and/or incorp orcling New Media inlo the c lassroom.
• Or jus! so mething g reo l thaI you are doing in yOUT c lassroom tha t you'd like share wi lh
oth er>I

Com plimenlary w ireless conn ec tions will be a va ilable to present ers in each b reck.-au l roo m . Pre sen ler> a re
asked 10 oong all necessa ry e q uipment (la ptops, d o l o Pfojectors, and a ny required cords or p owe r p lugs)
10 the c o nferenc e. If there is other eq uipme n llhat you will require, please includ e thaI unde r "technology
ne eds." Every ollem pl will b e m a d e to help you secure w hat you ne ed (though additio na l costs m oy
app ly).

Pre ference w ill b e give n 10 presentolions tha t a re lim ely, int erac tive, a nd relevant 10 l he leac hing live s o f
Michigan's l a nguage Art s, Eng lish , a nd Wri ting ed ucators . We w ill c ontac l e ac h proposal' s aul hor wi lh a n
e m ail message thall he sub m itted proposa l w as re ceived . O ur M CT E Exe c u live Boord w ill c ontacllhe
a u thor of each proposal w ith a confirmatio n o f a ccep tanc e by Mon d a y, August 27 , 201 2. Spac e is limi ted
and we cannot accommoda te e a ch a nd every worthy proposa l submitt ed. II you have questions, please
conlac l David Ha m mon/ree through email (hammon tr@o ak.land.edu) or c all 248-370-27 45.

Online proposal forms can be tound at http://mcte.info

The Language Arts Journal of Michigan, Volume 27, Number 2, Spring 2012 45